To disagree with the statement "the other woman owes you nothing"

[Sarahcoggles]

I see this time and again on MN.
Woman posts that husband is having an affair. She hates the OW and is very angry with her, as well as being angry with husband of course.
Then a load of posters pile in saying she should direct all her anger at husband, as he was the only one who owed her anything. The OW owed her nothing, so she shouldn't be angry with her.

I think that's wrong. We all owe our fellow human beings respect and courtesy. If I bump someone's car in a car park I should leave them a note. I don't owe them anything, I never promised I wouldn't bump into their car, they didn't put their trust in me not to bump into their car , I never promised to pay for any damage that I might do to their car. They don't even know me. But it's still my fault, my carelessness, and common courtesy dictates that I should leave a note and be held accountable.

Why is it perfectly fine to have a relationship with someone else's husband, knowing that you're going to hurt that person, just because they're a stranger and you never promised you wouldn't shag their husband?

Personally I think both parties are equally to blame, just in different ways.

Yes, this is what is meant by treating people as ends in themselves, not means to achieving your own aims.

We don't only have moral obligations to people we've legally committed to. We have moral obligations to other people because without that very basic consideration, everything falls apart.

sammylady37 as interesting as it is to know that fact about you, that does not mean that making references to what the bible says in the context of this thread is irrelevant.

No one is or has said you have to agree with what the bible says but the mere fact that it does say something about it is absolutely relevant to the discussion in this thread.

Of course it's reasonable to feel angry. But equally to blame? No.

I think it's said a lot on here because sometimes all of the anger, or most of the anger, gets focused on the OW because it's easier. She's a stranger (usually), you don't love her, you don't have memories with her, potentially children and so on.. you haven't built a life with her therefore it's easier to be mad at her than accept the person you loved could betray you like that. I think it's right for poster's to point out that she doesn't actually matter really. She should be in the peripheral of your anger and it should in the main, be directed at the person who made a vow/ committment to you even if that's harder.

Well, when posters are suggesting that one of the reasons we shouldn’t commit adultery is because the bible says so, it’s quite irrelevant to a thread on which that poster has no idea whether or not the bible has any meaning for others. If I posted about a book that suggested people should commit adultery, and used that as a way to suggest others commit adultery, would that be relevant, even if lots of posters hadn’t read the book and/or didn’t subscribe to its ideology?

I'm sure there's a plethora of misogynist sayings we could dredge up from all corners of the globe to support the argument. (Though full marks for finding one of the more nonsensical and distasteful.)
The bible is full of references to women leading men astray, which have no place as guidance in modern society. And if you're referring to 'lead us not into temptation' that is addressed to God and is asking for his protection from being tempted and falling prey to evil not an instruction to not lead men astray, so is doubly irrelevant here.

sammylady37 · Today 16:32

This is a public chat board. Provided not being overtly offensive or overtly discriminatory / promoting hate speech, people can come to the table with their own personal view / what is important to them. ~They are not forcing people to agree with them they are just saying what is important to them.

It is bizarre that you think people should be actively silenced from even mentioning the bible on a thread about infidelity in marriage!

"it’s quite irrelevant to a thread on which that poster has no idea whether or not the bible has any meaning for others"

there is no rule to say you have to know that something "has meaning for others" before you mention it?!?

Are you for real??

How about if she said "your partner and I have different morals than you have"? You don't get to decide the morals for the rest of the world.

Many MNers are openly misogynist about adultery. They see men as the inanimate objects from the car analogy, and women as the one in charge of morality. But men aren't inanimate objects, they make their own choices.

So many times on here posters say 'karma will get her. He'll cheat on her too' which proves that they think the correct 'punishment' for a cheating man is that he gets to carry on cheating, while a woman pays the price through humiliation.

What I said I have difficulty with is people quoting the bible as a reason others should behave in a certain way. If you and others choose to live your lives according to the bible, best of luck to you, that’s your decision. But something written in the bible is not a reason for me, or many others, to behave in a certain way, so I found it baffling and amusing to see it said (and I paraphrase a little here) that we shouldn’t commit adultery because the bible says not to. But I suspect you’re about to refuse to see my point and instead decide I’m discriminating against you 🤷‍♀️

Liorae · Today 17:14 so what morals are you saying the OW actually has? Please define the morals you are referring to.

"But I suspect you’re about to refuse to see my point and instead decide I’m discriminating against you 🤷‍♀️"

Hilarious that you think it is fine to cancel other peoples thoughts (don't even mention the word "bible" etc) whilst also claiming I will argue you are discriminating against me.

‘Cancelling other peoples thoughts’??

oh please! As if I did that. I objected to the bible being quoted as a guide to behaviour on a thread where it’s highly likely that many find it utterly irrelevant.
But as I actually mentioned, if you want to live your life according to the bible, best of luck to you. Just don’t expect others to adhere to it too.

I'm sure every ow has a different view of morals, just as every person does.

sammylady37 · Today 17:28 it is highly highly relevant, as are any other religious tracts of any other religions which prohibit extra marital adultery.
They go exactly to the heart of the OP's post namely that in law and even in the unwritten code of a civilised society the OW literally owes the wife nothing.
In contrast it is in religious doctrine that you find an express prohibition where you do not find that anywhere else.

I can only assume you have some personal history/experience in your life where you do not like to see or hear the word "bible" mentioned ever. Many people do not believe in it but not as many would take your stance (i.e. don't even utter the word "bible" in a thread about something which amounts to adultery)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative#Deception

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative#Deception

a lot of people believe that there are actually universal moral laws, with good reason.

Doesn't the bible also tell a story of a man whose wife couldn't have children, so he went and got a slave pregnant? I also vaguely remember another one about a man throwing his wife and/or daughter out to a gang of men to be raped because that was less shameful than them raping the males in the house. The bible has done a lot of harm to women. It's not a good book to get morals from.

This is in your Bible as well. Do you include this in your morals?
"If a man has intercourse with a man as with a woman, both commit an abomination. They must be put to death.”

Religious doctrine is only relevant to people of that religious persuasion. Your religion can prohibit you from doing something, it cannot prohibit me, nor should it or its followers attempt to.

And you can make all the assumptions you like about me, knock yourself out, but you won’t necessarily be right. In fact, there’s very little chance of you being right. But go right ahead, as previously stated I’ve no interest in ‘cancelling (your) thoughts’.

It is semantics yes, in that the outcome is the same (i.e: we don’t do those things), but we’ve taken different routes there.

I don’t choose against doing those things because I feel I owe anything, I don’t do those things because I have no desire to do them, and I see no benefit to be had in doing them. To be vulgar, dick isn’t especially hard to come by, why bother with one that’s going to bring with it significant amounts of drama and arseache?

The problem with thinking someone owes you, imo, is that you’re entirely dependent on the goodwill of a stranger to agree with that sentiment, and be willing to pay what you believe it owed. If they don’t (and judging by the amount of affairs that happen, there’s no shortage of people that don’t) then it’s not like you can do much about it.

BadNomad · Today 17:50 the bible is full to brimming of human beings who, because they are human beings, are sinful. Yes you recall rightly.

"Your religion can prohibit you from doing something, it cannot prohibit me, nor should it or its followers attempt to."

Literally at no point anywhere on this thread have I (or anyone else so far as I can see) attempted to "prohibit" you from doing anything. You do you.

I don’t choose against doing those things because I feel I owe anything, I don’t do those things because I have no desire to do them, and I see no benefit to be had in doing them. To be vulgar, dick isn’t especially hard to come by, why bother with one that’s going to bring with it significant amounts of drama and arseache?

I don't think that is simply a semantic difference then. Because it's possible that you could be an OW/OM without the drama and arseache - in my view it would still be morally wrong and I wouldn't do it.

If you're judging it solely by whether or not you 'desire' it and whether or not it would benefit you, then you and I have more than a semantic difference between our viewpoints here.

I don't think it's right to consider only your own desire and pleasure. I think we as human beings owe it to try not to cause other people pain unnecessarily,even if we haven't specifically pledged to them.

She’s a complete stranger - why the fuck would she care about you?

She owes you nothing

And FYI - it’s the law you notify the other party if you have a car accident (no matter how small - even a small bump). Not courtesy, the law.